News
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk explains why Blue Origin’s Starship lawsuit makes no sense
For the first time since SpaceX competitor Blue Origin took NASA to federal court after losing a Moon lander contract to Starship and a protest over that loss, unsealed documents have finally revealed the argument Jeff Bezos’ space startup is focusing on in court.
After the details broke in new court documents filed on Wednesday, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk weighed in on Twitter to offer his take on why the arguments Blue Origin has hinged its lawsuit on make very little sense.
While one seemingly significant portion of the main complaint claiming to reveal “additional substantial errors” in SpaceX’s Starship HLS proposal was almost fully redacted, most of the opening argument is legible. In short, Blue Origin appears to have abandoned the vast majority of arguments it threw about prior to suing NASA and the US government and is now almost exclusively hinging its case on the claim that SpaceX violated NASA’s procurement process by failing to account for a specific kind of prelaunch review before every HLS-related Starship launch.
For NASA’s HLS competition, SpaceX proposed to create a custom variant of Starship capable of serving as a single-stage-to-orbit crewed Moon lander with the help of the rest of the Starship fleet – including Super Heavy boosters, cargo/tanker Starships, and a depot or storage ship. SpaceX would begin a Moon landing campaign by launching a (likely heavily modified) depot Starship into a stable Earth orbit. Anywhere from 8 to 14 Starship tanker missions – each carrying around 100-150 tons of propellant – would then gradually fill that depot ship over the course of no more than six or so months. Once filled, an HLS lander would launch to orbit, refill its tanks from the depot ship, and make its way to an eccentric lunar orbit to rendezvous with NASA’s Orion spacecraft and three Artemis astronauts.
As Blue Origin has exhaustively reminded anyone within earshot for the last five months, SpaceX’s Starship Moon lander proposal is extremely complex and NASA is taking an undeniable risk (of delays, not for astronauts) by choosing SpaceX. Nevertheless, NASA’s Kathy Lueders and a source evaluation panel made it abundantly clear in public selection statement that SpaceX’s proposal was by far the most competent, offering far a far superior management approach and technical risk no worse than Blue Origin’s far smaller, drastically less capable lander.
The bulk of Blue Origin’s argument appears to be that its National Team Lander proposal was drastically disadvantaged by the fact that SpaceX may or may not have incorrectly planned for just three ‘flight readiness reviews’ (FRRs) for each 16-launch HLS Starship mission. While heavily redacted, Blue Origin wants a judge to believe that contrary to the US Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) fair assessment that such a small issue is incredibly unlikely to have changed the competition’s outcome, it would have “been able to propose a substantially lower price” for its lander. To be clear, a flight readiness review is an admittedly important part of NASA’s safety culture, but it ultimately amounts to paperwork and doublechecks over the course of a day or two of meetings.
All else equal, the need to complete an FRR before a launch is incredibly unlikely to cause more than a few days of delays in a worst-case scenario and would have next to no cost impact. There is no reasonable way to argue that being allowed to complete some launches without an FRR would have singlehandedly allowed Blue Origin to “[engineer] and [propose] an entirely different architecture.” Nevertheless, that’s exactly what the company attempts to argue – that it would have radically and completely changed the design it spent more than half a billion dollars sketching out if it had only been able to skip a few reviews.
Curiously, Blue Origin nevertheless does make a few coherent and seemingly fact-based arguments in the document. Perhaps most notably, it claims that when NASA ultimately concluded that it didn’t have funds for even a single award (a known fact) and asked SpaceX – its first choice – to make slight contract modifications to make the financial side of things work, NASA consciously chose to waive the need for an FRR before every HLS Starship launch. Only via purported cost savings from those waived reviews, Blue Origin claims, was NASA able to afford SpaceX’s proposal – which, it’s worth noting, was more than twice as cheap as the next cheapest option (Blue Origin).
Ultimately, it thus appears that Blue Origin may have a case to make that NASA awarded SpaceX the HLS Option A contract despite a handful of errors that violated contracting rules and the HLS solicitation. Relative to just about any other possible issue, though, it’s hard not to perceive the problems Blue Origin may or may have correctly pointed out as anything more than marginal and extraordinarily unlikely to have changed the outcome in Blue’s favor had they been rectified before the award. Most importantly, even if Blue Origin’s argument is somehow received favorably and a judge orders NASA to overturn its SpaceX HLS award and reconsider all three proposals, it’s virtually inconceivable that even that best-case outcome would result in Blue Origin receiving a contract of any kind.
Cybertruck
Tesla launches new Cybertruck trim with more features than ever for a low price
This is a considerable upgrade to the Cybertruck Rear-Wheel-Drive that Tesla offered last year. It was discontinued after just a few months, but we still have yet to see anyone share pictures of it online.
Tesla has officially launched a new trim of its all-electric Cybertruck, which has more features than previous offerings at this price point, which is an incredibly good value.
Tesla is now offering the Cybertruck All-Wheel-Drive, and starting at $59,990, it appears to be a lot of truck for the money.
Along with the sub-$60,000 starting price, Tesla gives the Cybertruck AWD a 325-mile range rating, a powered tonneau cover that houses three bed outlets. It also has Powershare capability, coil springs with adaptive damping for a refined suspension feel, Steer-by-wire and four-wheel-steering, a 6′ x 4′ composite bed, a towing capacity of 7,500 pounds, and a powered frunk.
This is a considerable upgrade to the Cybertruck Rear-Wheel-Drive that Tesla offered last year. It was discontinued after just a few months, but we still have yet to see anyone share pictures of it online.
Tesla has launched a new Cybertruck trim: the Cybertruck AWD
– Starts at $59,990
– Dual Motor AWD w/ est. 325 mi of range
– Powered tonneau cover
– Bed outlets (2x 120V + 1x 240V) & Powershare capability
– Coil springs w/ adaptive damping
– Heated first-row seats w/ textile… pic.twitter.com/erZBtlq3Bs— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 20, 2026
That truck did not have a power tonneau, did not have adaptive suspension, leather seats, or nearly any of the premium features in the upper-level trims. It was not a great deal, either. It was only a $10,000 discount from the next Cybertruck trim, which meant losing a motor and a lot of premium features for not that much of a savings.
This is a much better offering from Tesla and could help the company see a bit of a resurgence from a sales perspective. Although the Cybertruck is a popular vehicle from a fan perspective, it is not a great seller, and Tesla knows it.
Tesla Cybertruck undergoes interior mod that many owners wanted
Despite it being a crowd favorite, it was simply priced out of people’s budgets, so this All-Wheel-Drive configuration should be easier to handle financially for many of those who wanted the Cybertruck but not the price tag that came with it.
It is not a far cry from what Tesla priced back in 2019, as it unveiled three trim levels back in November, nearly seven years ago: a Single Motor for $39,990, a Dual Motor for $49,990, and a Tri-Motor for $69,990.
This new AWD trim is just $10,000 off from that price tag, and accounting for inflation, Tesla is pretty close.
Deliveries are expected to begin in June 2026.
News
Tesla dominates JD Power EV Satisfaction ranking, grabbing top two spots
The Model 3 was the highest ranking EV considered, with a score of 804, followed by the Model Y at 797, the BMW i4 at 795, and the BMW iX at 794.
Tesla dominated JD Power’s EV Owner Satisfaction ranking for 2026, grabbing the top two spots in the survey with the Model 3 and Model Y.
The two Tesla models grabbed the first and second spots, respectively, with scores of 804 and 797 out of 1,000 possible points.
Brent Gruber, Executive Director of JD Power’s EV practice, said:
“EV market share has declined sharply following the discontinuation of the federal tax credit program in September 2025, but that dip belies steadily growing customer satisfaction among owners of new EVs. Improvements in battery technology, charging infrastructure, and overall vehicle performance have driven customer satisfaction to its highest level ever. What’s more, the vast majority of current EV owners say they will consider purchasing another EV for their next vehicle, regardless of whether they benefited from the now-expired federal tax credit.”
JD Power’s study showed three key findings: Public charging satisfaction was higher than ever, premium BEVs saw more pronounced quality improvements, and BEVs held their satisfaction ratings compared to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs).
Tesla Grabs Top 2 Spots
Despite what some publications might try to make you believe, Tesla is still the cream of the crop when it comes to EV ownership, and real-world owners surveyed by JD Power will prove that to you.
The Model 3 was the highest ranking EV considered, with a score of 804, followed by the Model Y at 797, the BMW i4 at 795, and the BMW iX at 794. The segment average for “Premium Battery Electric Vehicles” was 786. The Cadillac OPTIQ (762), Rivian R1S (758), Lucid Air (740), Rivian R1T (739), and Audi Q6 e-Tron (690) all finished below that threshold.
Meanwhile, a separate category for “Mass Market Battery Electric Vehicles” had the Ford Mustang Mach-E as the EV with the highest rating at 760. The segment average for this class was 727.
🚨 Tesla topped J.D. Power’s new EV Owner Satisfaction Study for 2026, with the Model 3 (804) and Model Y (797) being the top-rated vehicles, beating out the BMW i4 (795) and iX (794)
Additionally, Tesla Superchargers helped public charging satisfaction rise to new highs:
“The… pic.twitter.com/4WIxoDxHig
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 19, 2026
Tesla Supercharging Improves Public Charging Satisfaction
JD Power said the availability of public charging is “by far the most improved index factor,” and that the consistent growth of publicly available charging has helped push many consumer sentiments in a positive direction.
Most of this is due to the Tesla Supercharger Network and its expansion. However, Tesla owners are also becoming more satisfied with the infrastructure after expanding access to other EV brands, the study said.
Elon Musk
Musk company boycott proposal at City Council meeting gets weird and ironic
The City of Davis in California held a weekly city council meeting on Tuesday, where it voted on a proposal to ban Musk-operated companies. It got weird and ironic.
A city council meeting in California that proposed banning the entry of new contracts with companies controlled by Elon Musk got weird and ironic on Tuesday night after councilmembers were forced to admit some of the entities would benefit the community.
The City of Davis in California held a weekly city council meeting on Tuesday, where it voted on a proposal called “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies.”
The proposal claimed that Musk ” has used his influence and corporate platforms to promote political ideologies and activities that threaten democratic norms and institutions, including campaign finance activities that raise ethical and legal concerns.”
We reported on it on Tuesday before the meeting:
California city weighs banning Elon Musk companies like Tesla and SpaceX
However, the meeting is now published online, and it truly got strange.
While it was supported by various members of the community, you could truly tell who was completely misinformed about the influence of Musk’s companies, their current status from an economic and competitive standpoint, and how much some of Musk’s companies’ projects benefit the community.
City Council Member Admits Starlink is Helpful
One City Council member was forced to admit that Starlink, the satellite internet project established by Musk’s SpaceX, was beneficial to the community because the emergency response system utilized it for EMS, Fire, and Police communications in the event of a power outage.
After public comments were heard, councilmembers amended some of the language in the proposal to not include Starlink because of its benefits to public safety.
One community member even said, “There should be exceptions to the rule.”
🚨 After the City of Davis, California, held its City Council meeting on Tuesday and voted on a resolution called “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies,” it was forced to admit that it needs… pic.twitter.com/hQiCIX3yll
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 19, 2026
Community Members Report Out of Touch Mainstream Media Narratives
Many community members very obviously read big bold headlines about how horribly Tesla is performing in terms of electric vehicles. Many pointed to “labor intimidation” tactics being used at the company’s Fremont Factory, racial discrimination lawsuits, and Musk’s political involvement as clear-cut reasons why Davis should not consider his companies for future contracts.
However, it was interesting to hear some of them speak, very obviously out of touch with reality.
Musk has encouraged unions to propose organizing at the Fremont Factory, stating that many employees would not be on board because they are already treated very well. In 2022, he invited Union leaders to come to Fremont “at their convenience.”
The UAW never took the opportunity.
Some have argued that Tesla prevented pro-union clothing at Fremont, which it did for safety reasons. An appeals court sided with Tesla, stating that the company had a right to enforce work uniforms to ensure employee safety.
Another community member said that Tesla was losing market share in the U.S. due to growing competition from legacy automakers.
“Plus, these existing auto companies have learned a lot from what Tesla has done,” she said. Interestingly, Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis have all pulled back from their EV ambitions significantly. All three took billions in financial hits.
One Resident Crosses a Line
One resident’s time at the podium included this:
Another member of the community did this…a member of the City Council admonished him and it came to a verbal spat https://t.co/zWvKCiCkie pic.twitter.com/1L334qq9av
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 19, 2026
He was admonished by City Council member Bapu Vaitla, who said his actions were offensive. The two sparred verbally for a few seconds before their argument ended.
City Council Vote Result
Ultimately, the City of Davis chose to pass the motion, but they also amended it to exclude Starlink because of its emergency system benefits.
Tesla launches new Cybertruck trim with more features than ever for a low price
Tesla dominates JD Power EV Satisfaction ranking, grabbing top two spots
